Forum:Question about Artwork Features
Not sure if this is the right place, but I need to broach a concern I have. I happened by the wiki after a long hiatus of not being involved and I noted the featured artwork for this week is a very good piece. But it also gave me pause for considerable thought. I've got a strong suspicion that the art used for the character Atrias isn't original art and is ripped from somewhere on the internet and used as a placeholder. The most immediate thing that raised my suspicion was the quality of the art. I'm not saying people can't be good artists, but that artwork looks extremely professional, as if made for a video game or the like. However, even more to the point, the picture doesn't match the character description at all. Among other things, Atrias the character is written as having long, black hair tied back with a ribbon. The character in the picture has short, golden hair and no ribbon or ponytail. I think this matter is very fishy and I feel this is an issue worth reconsideration. I can't find the original art on the internet anywhere, but I think it is worth looking at. One of the criteria listed on the Weekly Featured Article page is "no copying copyrighted works." I suspect this may be a violation of that rule. If I can find the original image, I'll certainly let you know. But I'm very certain that Atrias's player didn't make the image, he's only using what he pulled from somewhere else on the web. Thanks, - Dominik ::I'm trying to err on the side of caution with the copyright infringements, but I couldn't find the original image in any of my normal places to check, and as the original image was posted with the poster claiming it as their own work, I thought the quality deserved a feature. With that said, if you find the original image anywhere else on the net and find it to be a game illustration,concept art or the like, send me a link and it will be immediately deleted. --Eupheria 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :::Actually, given that the page hasn't been touched in nearly a year and the user is marked as Dormant (and the page is incomplete), I've started a discussion for the merits of deletion vs. keeping at Talk:Atrias Glowember. :::--Stamp 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ::::If we deleted all the dormant image pages on the wiki, there would be no art section.--Eupheria 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :::::Let's avoid broadening the subject to the reach of deleting old data, and stick with the situation of reasonable suspicion concerning the image of subject and the author. :::::--Lilithia 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ::::::There was another thread regarding this in which it was determined that assuming things are stolen is unacceptable, and deleting them without any proof of their origins differing from what was stated by the original poster is.. I believe the phrase that was used was "gestapo like." If it was unmarked or marked as "I found this somewhere," that would be one thing, but he stated it was his work. Are we now going to take a guilty until proven innocent approach?--Eupheria 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ::::::I don't think we should yank the image or assume guilt. It deserves further research, but it's not an easy thing to investigate unless someone familiar with the art actually complains. ::::::--Stamp 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::Then it seems like we're in agreement (sorry Stamp, the fact that it was linked from this page, regarding featured art, as discussion of the issue made me think you wanted to delete the image, not the character page. *confuzzled*). Unless there is no copyright information provided or proof of a copyright violation is found, then anything included in the art (soon to become "fanart") section is eligible to be featured, should it meet the other criteria. If someone can show that the image is in violation of copyright laws, it will be deleted, immediately. Until then, fact is we do have a few professional artists that play on this server, maybe more, and suspicions of infringement are not enough. --Eupheria 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ::::::::I agree, it's not enough to take action without proof. No harm done! :) --Stamp 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::::I've gotten information from several people that it's actually Ragnarok Online art, not an original piece of art. I'm looking for the original image, but the character class is Crusader. The people I've shown the picture to recognized it immediately, so while I don't have the original image exactly yet, I'm sure it's out there. I realize there are several professional artists on the server, but this style was extremely distinct and registered Ragnarok suspicions in my own mind when I saw it. Did this particular player actually "verbally" claim to have drawn the art or was it just the implicit understanding that he did by posting the picture on the site? -- Dominik. Original image found: http://www.ragnarokonline.jp/news/event/gm050311/image/crusader_m.gif From the Ragnarok Online website itself. Well, not THE original image, but it's an identical picture in different colors. -- Dominik :::::::::::That's all I needed. Thank you for doing the search. Also, to answer the your question, the original poster did list himself as the author when he uploaded it. I don't assume anything is done by the person that uploaded it unless it is stated in the summary. --Eupheria 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) I've gotten information from several people that it's actually Ragnarok Online art, not an original piece of art. I'm looking for the original image, but the character class is Crusader. The people I've shown the picture to recognized it immediately.... I'm completely off-topic, here, but I'd just like to say that you need to give those people an award, Dom. I can't tell the difference between Ragnarok Online art and the 14,000 other anime-styled RPGs. --Lilithia 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)